this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
736 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

60086 readers
5161 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NateNate60 -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They did not do it by manipulating code. This wasn't the result of a code vulnerability. If you leave the door wide open with all your stuff out for the entire neighbourhood to see, you can't claim you were "broken into". Similarly, if you don't secure your endpoints, you can't claim you were "hacked".

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lack of rate limiting is a code vulnerability if we are talking about an API endpoint.

Not that discussion makes any sense at all...

Also, "not securing" doesn't mean much. Security is not a boolean. They probably have some controls, but they still have a gap in the lack of rate limiting.

[–] NateNate60 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It is a vulnerability, but exploiting that vulnerability is not generally considered by security experts to be "hacking" in the usual meaning of that term in academic settings. Using an open or exposed API, even one with a sign that says "don't abuse me", is generally not considered hacking.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I am a security professional. I would personally not care less to make the distinction, as both are very generic terms that are used very liberally in the industry.

So I don't see any reason not to call this hacking. This was not an intended feature. It was a gap, which has been used to perform things that the application writer did not intended (not in this form). If fits with the definition of hacking as far as I can tell. In any case, this is not an academic discussion, it is a security advisory or an article that talks about it.

[–] Freefall 1 points 5 months ago

I was gonna say, we use hacking as a term for a lot of things, even is something like cracking is more accurate. It is like Clip vs Mag in firearms...when you say clip EVERYONE knows what you are talking about.

[–] NateNate60 0 points 5 months ago

I'm not someone who works on the practical side of security, but as a computer scientist, I do not agree that it is "hacking". That contradicts my understanding of "hack" versus other types of exploits, but you are correct that the distinction is generally not that important. A security problem is a security problem regardless what it's called

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well from a professional here: It is.

[–] NateNate60 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not talking out of my arse here either. I don't work in security specifically but I've got a CS degree as well and it contradicts my understanding of how those terms are generally used. This is an open API endpoint, equivalent to leaving the garage door open.

But the distinction is usually unimportant. A security hole is a security hole regardless of what you call it.

[–] lando55 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

To build on you analogy: if you left your garage door open and people came in and started taking your things, is that not stealing?

[–] NateNate60 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Of course it's stealing. But they didn't break in.

Hacking = breaking in

Data breach = stealing stuff

[–] lando55 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What about this scenario:

  • you keep your main garage door, side doors, and windows locked
  • provide a key to anyone who wants to borrow your lawnmower or whatever
  • someone discovers a window you mistakenly left unlocked and starts using it to take stuff without using a key

Would this be considered breaking in? Probably. Here is where the analogy breaks down; if I were to leave the front door of my house unlocked, even if there's a welcome mat outside, anyone who enters without my knowledge or consent can be charged with breaking and entering (yes, even though no actual breaking is involved).

The interesting thing with public APIs is that there are generally terms and conditions associated with creating an account and acquiring a key, though if you are hitting an unauthenticated endpoint you technically never agreed to them. In this particular case with Authy, it would probably be argued that the intent was to acquire data by exploiting a vulnerability in the custodian's system and use it for nefarious purposes or profit. I'd call it a hack.

[–] NateNate60 1 points 5 months ago

The scenario you described would not be breaking in.

Terms and conditions being agreed to are not relevant for this purpose. An exposed API is one that is welcome to be exploited. If you're not requiring an API key, you're essentially saying "This API is free for anyone to use" for security purposes, regardless of what you say in the terms and conditions.

[–] just_another_person -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] NateNate60 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Please provide a link to whatever source claims this.

I hold a computer science degree and this contradicts the definition of "hack" versus "exploit" used in academic settings.

[–] irreticent -1 points 5 months ago

They probably typed it out themself then screenshotted it.